On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:28:09PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On 19 August 2014 07:12, Thierry Reding <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:55:18AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> On 19 August 2014 05:35, Thierry Reding <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > >> > The Linux kernel handles this by wrapping it in an of_read_number() > >> > helper and always returning u64, like this: > >> > > >> > static inline u64 of_read_number(const __be32 *cell, int size) > >> > { > >> > u64 r = 0; > >> > > >> > while (size--) > >> > r = (r << 32) | be32_to_cpu(*(cell++)); > >> > > >> > return r; > >> > } > >> > > >> > It obviously only works for size in { 0, 1, 2 }, but I can add a helper > >> > like that if you want. > >> > >> > >> That looks good. It works for the cases we need and it's obvious later > >> where the logic is if we want to extend it. > > > > This is what I have for U-Boot currently. > > > > static fdt_addr_t fdtdec_get_address(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int cells) > > { > > fdt_addr_t addr = 0; > > > > while (cells--) > > /* do the shift in two steps to avoid warning on 32-bit */ > > addr = (addr << 16) << 16 | fdt32_to_cpu(*ptr++); > > Odd warning! Does 32UL help?
The exact warning that I get is this:
warning: left shift count >= width of type
So the problem is that since addr is of type fdt_addr_t which is 32-bit,
we're effectively shifting all bits out of the variable. The compiler
will generate the same assembly code whether or not I use the single 32-
bit shift or two 16-bit shifts, but using the latter the warning is
gone. That's on both 32-bit and 64-bit ARM.
> > Alternatively perhaps something like this could be done:
> >
> > static u64 fdtdec_get_number(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int cells)
> > {
> > /* the above */
> > }
> >
> > static fdt_addr_t fdtdec_get_address(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned
> > int cells)
> > {
> > return fdtdec_get_number(ptr, cells);
> > }
> >
> > static fdt_size_t fdtdec_get_size(const fdt32_t *ptr, unsigned int
> > cells)
> > {
> > return fdtdec_get_number(ptr, cells);
> > }
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure it's really worth the trouble since fdt_addr_t and
> > fdt_size_t are both always either u32 or u64.
>
> Yes, although I suppose ultimately these might be 64-bit always,
> Perhaps we should merge the types?
That's one other possibility. On Linux there's one common type for
these:
typedef phys_addr_t resource_size_t;
where phys_addr_t is defined as follows:
#ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
typedef u64 phys_addr_t;
#else
typedef u32 phys_addr_t;
#endif
Perhaps we should simply copy that. I take it CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT is
U-Boot's equivalent of CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT? It doesn't seem to be
documented anywhere but its usage would indicate that it is. I don't
think U-Boot supports things like LPAE, so there's probably no need to
control this more fine-grainedly than with a single CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT
setting.
Thierry
pgpKq8N87NPq5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
